Search - considered

Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the Appellant's income in 1992 and 1993 was earned by the partnership carried on between her husband and herself. ...

He described awakening at 3:00 a.m. with the pain, not being able to go back to sleep, with the result of him suffering considerable fatigue the next day. [6]            The most relevant provisions of the Act are as follows: 118.3 (1)            Where (a)            an individual has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment, (a.1)         the effects of the impairment are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (a.2)         in the case of (i)             a sight impairment, a medical doctor or an optometrist, (ii)            a hearing impairment, a medical doctor or an audiologist, (iii)           an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in feeding and dressing themself, or in walking, a medical doctor or an occupational therapist, (iv)           an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in perceiving, thinking and remembering, a medical doctor or a psychologist, and (v)            an impairment not referred to in any of subparagraphs (i) to (iv), a medical doctor has certified in prescribed form that the impairment is a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted, (b)            the individual has filed for a taxation year with the Minister the certificate described in paragraph (a.2), and (c)            no amount in respect of remuneration for an attendant or care in a nursing home, in respect of the individual, is included in calculating a deduction under section 118.2 (otherwise than because of paragraph 118.2(2)(b.1)) for the year by the individual or by any other person, for the purposes of computing the tax payable under this Part by the individual for the year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula A x $4,118 where A is the appropriate percentage for the year.... 118.4 (1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a)            an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or can reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b)            an individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c)            a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i)             perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii)            feeding and dressing oneself, (iii)           speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv)           hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v)            eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi)           walking; and (d)            for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. [7]            There is no doubt that the Appellant has a disability which will continue for the foreseeable future. ...

The facts on which the Minister based his decision must be considered true until proven false by the appellant. [34]     The appellant's witnesses were credible. ...

SOME HISTORY When the CPP was introduced in 1966, the provisions of many pension plans, including those of the superannuation plans, were reviewed since many people considered that the CPP was simply duplicating some part of pension coverage already provided to members of those plans. ...

The decision, on the merits of the Appellant's application under subsection 220(3.1) is at the discretion of the Minister. [9]            The Appellant also disputed the detailed accounting rendered to him in Court and in particular suggested that two cheques paid to him of $149,301.34 (See Exhibit R-9) and of $31,422.47 (See Exhibit R-8, page 9), did not add up to the total which he considered due to him of the sums of                 $83,105.44                 $37,529.36                 $13,096.00 and                 $65,470.28 (See Exhibit R-8, page 9). ...

The case law has established that, generally speaking, where a recipient spouse does not have discretion as to the use of the support payments, those payments will not be considered to be an allowance: Queen v. ...

. $32,100.00 x 12 months x 2% $7,704.00 Plus Operating Cost Benefit Standby charge x ½ $ 3,852.00 Gross Benefit $11,556.00 (n)            in the 1995 and 1996 Taxation Years the Company loaned funds to the Appellant throughout the year; (o)            throughout the 1995 and 1996 Taxation Years the shareholder loan account of the Appellant was in a debit position; (p)            the Appellant did not pay the Company any interest in respect of the borrowed funds throughout the 1995 and 1996 Taxation Years; (q)            in the 1995 and 1996 Taxation Years the Company conferred a benefit of $278.00 and $403.00 respectively on the Appellant in the capacity of shareholder. [3]            At the hearing of these appeals, the Appellant stated that he agreed with all of the facts set forth in the Reply as mentioned above but that he considered the 2% x 12 i.e. 24% rate for the calculation of the standby charge and the calculation of the operating cost benefit, based on that rate were excessive and usurious. [4]            The Appellant pointed to interest rates charged from time to time on the financing costs of new automobiles and attempted to compare that to the 24% rate for calculating the standby charge. ...

Alm's previous solicitor advised the Court that the issue of child maintenance had been resolved between the parties with regard to Corry Dawn Alm. [8]            Bowman A.C.J. recently considered in Foley v. ...

He identified a need to empower students and considered delivering this through the use of a magazine; as he described it, a magazine for youth by youth. ...

He wanted it to be considered as an asset to the neighbourhood and not simply something to squeeze money from. ...